H. N. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) AN important question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question is whether the land vests with the government under section 44 of the Karnataka land reforms act of 1974 even though the land tribunal declares such land as not a tenanted land and who is the authority to effect the entries in the rtc in such an event. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the owner of land measuring 7 acres 9 guntas in survey No. 18/2 of teredahalli village, haveri taluk, dharwad district. The third respondent herein claimed as tenants and filed form No. 7 to the land tribunal, haveri. however, during the course of enquiry before the land tribunal, certain disclosures were made to the effect that the third respondent surrendered the land on his own and that the owner has been cultivating the said land for the last 10 to 12 years. acting upon this statement of the landlord and the person who claimed tenancy, the tribunal, haveri chose to reject the application of the third respondent. There was no appeal or any proceeding before this court challenging the correctness of the said order. Twenty one years thereafter in the year 1993, the petitioner made an application before the tahsildar, haveri to change the entries in the pahani and to substitute his name deleting the name of the third respondent. The tahsildar has issued an endorsement as in Annexure-D stating that he cannot pass any order in the matter in the light of the direction issued by the deputy commissioner, dharwad in his office circular rts cr 29/82-83, dated 13-5-1986, a xerox copy of which is marked as Annexure-E. ( 3 ) IT appears that the divisional commissioner called for a meeting of the revenue officers including the deputy commissioner and took a decision directing the tahsildar not to effect any change in the pahanis in accordance with the orders of the tribunal in such cases. It may be stated at once in this case that the present case on hand clearly falls under the category mentioned under the circular Annexure-E. There is no difficulty for the tahsildar to pass suitable orders having regard to the order of the tribunal itself which has rejected form No. 7 filed by the third respondent. It may be stated at once in this case that the present case on hand clearly falls under the category mentioned under the circular Annexure-E. There is no difficulty for the tahsildar to pass suitable orders having regard to the order of the tribunal itself which has rejected form No. 7 filed by the third respondent. It is unnecessary for this court to go into the legality of the decision taken by the divisional commissioner as in Annexure-E. Such a decision cannot substitute a statute or the Provisions therein. In fact, Annexure-E has no validity in law nor, can it be construed having issued under any Rule or law under the said act. ( 4 ) SECTION 44 of the Land Reforms Act provides for vesting of the land in the state government and to the circumstances enumerated therein. There is no difficulty to hold that where the lands held by or in possession of tenants immediately prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act those lands stand transferred to and vest with the state government. ( 5 ) THE crucial question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is incidentally when the tenanted land vests with the government. It is undisputed that unless the land is determined as a tenanted land by the land tribunal which is the only competent authority to determine such a thing, that the land vests with the government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ("the act" for short ). There may be cases of collusions between the landlord and tenants as pointed out by a division bench of this court in s. Bangarappa v somappa. It was observed in the said case that such a vesting in the state is a jurisdictional factor and the same ought to have been gone into. Without determination of the same, the order of the tribunal is vitiated. The entries in the revenue records continued to show the name of the deceased father of respendents 10 and 11 as the tenant. The tenancy rights had not been put to an end either by surrender or resumption. Therefore it shall be deemed to have been continued. Without determination of the same, the order of the tribunal is vitiated. The entries in the revenue records continued to show the name of the deceased father of respendents 10 and 11 as the tenant. The tenancy rights had not been put to an end either by surrender or resumption. Therefore it shall be deemed to have been continued. A similar though under a different context, question came up for consideration before this court in sakrappa v state of karnataka , wherein it is held as follows:"under Section 44 of the Act, the tenanted land as on 1-3-1974 vests absolutely free from all encumbrances in the state government and if the application of the tenant under Section 48-a (8) is belated, his right to be registered as an occupant shall have no effect; but there is no consequential provision providing that the land shall be deemed to have not vested in the state government as in Section 38. That brings out the scope of Section 44, that is to say, if the application of the tenant is rejected as being barred by time, the over-riding effect of Section 44 of the act is not taken away by the Provisions of Section 48-a (8) of the act". ( 6 ) ON the plain language of Section 44, the state government's right to tenanted lands immediately before 1-3-1974 must be given full effect to by this court and that right can be exercised only by imposing a ground to limit the duty of the tribunal to those tenants under Section 5 (2) leases and other leases permitted to continue after 1-3-1974, in the absence of any express words to that effect. ( 7 ) IT is now settled by the ruling of these decisions that whether an application of the tenant filed in form 7 is rejected or whether an order of the tribunal holding that a particular applicant is not a tenant, it is the duty of the tribunal to give a finding whether the particular land is a tenanted land or not as on the date of coming into force of the Act, that is the legally vesting and that determines the nature of the land. unfortunately, in this case the tribunal has not given any such finding even though the names of tenants find a place in the rtc and continued to show their names even after 12 years. unfortunately, in this case the tribunal has not given any such finding even though the names of tenants find a place in the rtc and continued to show their names even after 12 years. The only illegality pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order is that the tahsildar has refused to enter the name of the petitioner on the basis of the circular issued by the deputy commissioner. This is no doubt a clear error. However, the tahsildar should have referred this question to the land tribunal for its determination to give a finding whether the said land is vested with the government or not. If the finding goes in favour of the landlord, he is entitled to continue as the owner of the property. If the finding goes against him, then it is for the government to take appropriate action under Section 77 of the act. While quashing the impugned order of the tahsildar, a direction is now issued to the tahsildar to refer the matter to the land tribunal, haveri, and to take appropriate action. ( 8 ) PETITION is allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .